For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Friday, 28 June 2013

Regular readers will have noticed that Her Looniness has commenced her annual break, a time when traditionally she puts down her laptop and moves away from the internet in order to spend more time with her psychiatrist.

It's a time of huge relief for her long-suffering husband, Fred, who for a few treasured weeks is spared the hideousness of his normal day-to-day existence, reassuring his wife that no table in the world could possibly accommodate nine adults and still have room for a busty quiz mistress.

However - I am aware that her regular readers miss terribly her infusions of batshit crazy cobblers, therefore I am pleased to announce that normal service will continue here, as we take the opportunity to revisit some of her more demented rambles through the twilight zone of her mind.

Any requests to revisit specific cobblerfests will receive every consideration - simply drop us a message marked ''What about that one where the mad bitch claimed.........'' and we'll get right on it.

Sunday, 23 June 2013

"You can't ''selectively clean'' a room of the DNA of one individual whilst leaving others behind."

Back, you are again with your game Insane. Yes, you can .... If you want, let's say DEEP CLEAN FIRST AND AFTER SELECTIVELY CONTAMINATE THE PLACE. From what I read in the files, and Paulo Reis on his blog, dedicate a big analyse on the hair samples... Hair samples from Kate, Gerry and some T7 males were recovered from the flat. Few, in my opinion, if I consider the chaos that must be instaled on the people close to the child, when a child disappears without them knowing where she went. The amount of hair recovered, shows that even the contamination involving the main characters, was methodical, qb. No hair from D Payne, who was kept on the crime scene by Mccann's own words. Another story created to give alibis for the crucial hours. Probably the hours, the T9 were all busy dealing with the body and cleaning the blood traces, out of the eyes of any independent witness. Exactely the same time, the Berries also delivered a story of a cot to be setled in one room and the preparation for a take away dinner.

Provide us with link which proves " hair from previous residents was recovered". Why you use the word "residents"? Was the flat not rented for guests who came for short holidays, a week or so? Interesting.

So let's take a few of the crazy claims from this, shall we?

'' Yes, you can .... If you want, let's say DEEP CLEAN FIRST AND AFTER SELECTIVELY CONTAMINATE THE PLACE.'' - Er, DNA which remained from a previous occupant, together with hairs belonging to the same would tend to blow this nonsense out of the water. Unless you are suggesting that they just happened to have some saliva and hairs belonging to a previous resident lying about, ready to ''contaminate'' the scene with, hmmm? Get a fucking grip, you deranged harpy.

''No hair from D Payne, who was kept on the crime scene by Mccann's own words.'' - Nope, untrue. Hair from David Payne recovered from the apartment, in the entrance hall. All in the files. No, find the link yourself, I am not your slave

''Probably the hours, the T9 were all busy dealing with the body and cleaning the blood traces, out of the eyes of any independent witness. Exactely the same time, the Berries also delivered a story of a cot to be setled in one room and the preparation for a take away dinner.'' - Seriously - what the fuck are you on about? Because it sounds very much like you are claiming another, non-tapas family were involved, and that would be exceptionally libelous. Oh - and there were no blood traces. But you knew that.........

Seriously, dear, you are obviously off your head, and haven't a clue what you are on about. Of course in your cosy, imaginary world, where Textusa had led you, every man and his dog were part of a grand conspiracy. But I'm afraid it isn't so.

Saturday, 22 June 2013

Textusa - whose understanding of basic science is somewhat on a par with that enjoyed by a packet of digestive biscuits - shared this little gem with you earlier.

If one doesn't forget that the Ocean Club cleaners aren't exactly "expert cleaners"one must ask why also the lack of expected amount of forensic data from former tourists in that apartment and, in particular, in that room?

We have, as far as we know, the evidence of the stain attributed to a 3 yr old.

The wall and floor stains 9a&b are also attributed to him, which would contradict the blood splatters being fromPaul “Labrador” Gordon in the living room who is said to have walked around the apartment trying to staunch bleeding after cutting himself shaving.

We call him Paul “Labrador” Gordon like aLabrador he seems to shake his body with such energy that sprays wallswith his blood. But that's hearsay and you know what we think about hearsay.

But if you look at the cleansing of the kids room under the "Clean Party Floor” phenomenon perspective then suddenly you may understand many things.

What if they weren’t cleaning Maddie’s DNA in that room but cleaning all traces of those who had been present in that room in the last days?

A few points, dimwit

There were no ''blood splatters'' recovered from apartment 5a

I am happy to amend this to acknowledge that a later analysis links samples 9a and 9b to the young boy who was the source for the saliva spot. These stains are not, however, recorded anywhere as blood. No blood was recovered from the apartment.

The fact that there were hairs found which were shed by previous residents also gives the lie to the bollocks about the flat being subject to ''exaggerated cleaning''

Where do you get the idea that there was less DNA from former residents than expected? Support this claim with references please (she can't, so don't get your hopes up)

You can't ''selectively clean'' a room of the DNA of one individual whilst leaving others behind.

You know what the basic problem is, Textusa?

You and your sidekicks are fucking thick. This was all covered in a previous thread, but as ever you prefer to believe the shite you have read in newspapers and on blogs. I hope none of you have children. For one thing, I'd hate to think what kind of example you set them and secondly it seems actively cruel to send them into the world with a genetic profile which is barely a base pair away from something which could feature as the Vegetarian special of the day.

As you can see in the diagram above, there was one room that didn’t need to be cleaned. The kids room.

We can’t see how any of Maddie’s blood could have gone into that room.

So, ALL traces of Maddie in that room would have been as expected as the crumbs on the floor in our teenage party.

It would have been VERY convenient in terms of realism for that room to be filled with Maddie’s DNA. After all it would have been where she spent a lot of her time after all, wouldn’t it?

So why wash clean that room completely clean of Maddie?

Why wash the pillowcases and sheets where the child had just slept?

Okaaaay.

What makes you think the room was ''washed clean of any trace of Madeleine''?

And what makes you claim the bedding was washed?

Tell me, Textusa, do you just make this stuff up as you go, in the full knowledge that most of your readers are so breathtakingly dim that they won't notice?

I honestly think you might have stumbled across a new way to assess IQ. Get someone to read one of your posts, and the more of it they believe, the more stupid they are. Yep, you should patent that, quickly......

Friday, 21 June 2013

Ah Textusa - I see you have posted a new steaming great big pile of manure, just in time for the weekend. You are too good to me, truthfully

Well, there will be lots to come, but I think it's only fair to give you a heads up now about your claims that ''wall and floor stains 9 a and b'' were attributed to the same little boy as was the source of the saliva stain on the bedspread

Group A, or the “BH PdL Faction”, is made up of those who hosted the event. They were/are resident or working in Praia da Luz and were not guests. Ocean Club management and staff as well as the“core-organization-team” made up ex-Pats of which Robert Murat is the most well known.

This group was the one that took the early decisions and is the one that is looked at as the one responsible for all this.

It was this group that in our opinion took care of the body until it was disposed of.

Group B is made up of the guests. All those who flew into Praia da Luz to participate in a swinging event that took place in the Ocean Club Resort.

This group was assured by Group A that all would be alright and that Maddie’s disappearance would be perfectly justified by having Maddie “abducted” and in that way guarantee that no sex-scandal would ever erupt.

Group C is made up of all those on the receiving end of the many phone-calls made by those of Groups A and B on the night from 3 to 4 May 2007.

Group C is made up of very powerful and very influential people in UK. So powerful and so influential that they were able to make not only the UK act according to their desire but make Portugal also do the same.

You always state that you don't make claims that you can't prove, so why haven't you gone to the police and told them you have figured it all out?

Is is because you know it's all bollocks?

After all, if you really believed what you were saying surely you would want to bring those responsible to justice...........

Friday, 14 June 2013

I honestly think this statement from Textusa is one of the most ridiculous things she has ever said - and that's up against some stiff competition

''What if, as we think it is, this“Laundryman” sighting is about the rightful “owner” of the stain that was found on the bedspread in the children’s room in 5A and up to now allocated to a 3 year old boy?

What if, as we think it is, SY has known all along who this “owner” is and is now telling this person “Hello, this is about YOU!”?''

Rejoining the real world for a moment, the DNA recovered from that stain was a match to the DNA of a little boy who had stayed in the apartments with his parents before the McCanns stayed there. Forensics designated it saliva.

So - there are three possibilities, Textusa

Firstly, the little boy could have a previously unknown twin, 20 years his senior, who popped into the same apartment at some point and gobbed on the bedspread. Or did something a lot worse on the bedspread to satisfy your desperate need for it to be a semen sample.

Or

The FSS for reasons best known to themselves and doubtless because they are actually giant lizards or something, decided to fit up a baby boy ''for a laugh''

Or

You are utterly deranged

I know which my money is on

What is wrong with you that makes you unable to grasp this? The DNA has been identified. It belonged to a baby boy. There is nothing to see here.

And frankly, whatever your rambling nonsense about the laundryman is supposed to mean would defeat the Enigma machine and the combined brains of GCHQ

''First, because we believe that the train has definitely left the station. But before you get your hopes up, we still have to see if it's headed for Dumbledore, Harry Potter’s school or for a more real station like King’s Cross.''So - you're not a Harry Potter fan, Textusa?Someone tell her, ffs

Over at Loony central:''Meanwhile, the real players, Murdoch and Cameron were fighting the "Leveson war"as to who would control the Enablers who made the Maddie Affair the mess as big as it became: the Tabloid Press.

It seems that that particular fighting is over, having, in our opinion, Cameron wisely understanding that time plays in Murdoch's favour who although holding now less power between them, will continue to have it while Cameron will lose his in the natural democratic passage of time, has refocused his objectives.

In this entertaining post we are treated to a glimpse of what goes on in the head of someone who is totally and utterly deranged. Well, I say that - but it is difficult sometimes to work out whether Textusa actually believes the horseshit she writes, or whether she is merely having a huge laugh at the expense of her readers.

After wittering on for several interminable pages about, well, fuck all really, she finally gets around to the main act. A short video clip of journalist Martin Brunt, sitting at the table in the tapas bar where the McCann party sat each night. We can clearly see it is a large table. It is the kind of table which could seat nine for dinner.

Now - this film pisses on Textusa's chips somewhat, as she has already claimed that the table didn't exist, and nor did the tapas dinners.

Faced with the fact that footage of Mr Brunt sitting at the very table she said could not exist meant that her loopy theory was - and I use this term advisedly - fucking nuts, she has to set about destroying the alibi.

In a passage of prose unrivaled in its ability to make the reader spray coffee out of their nostrils, she declares that the image has been ''digitally remastered''
Describing in great detail the imaginary ''flickering edge'' of the table, she litters the post with nonsensical bits of cobblers such as ''negligence pirouette'' (seriously, you don't want to know) and ''ballerina tables''

It is the biggest load of conspiralunacy you will ever read. The Emperor's new clothes is not a patch on this.

So do have a read. Especially read the comments at the end. I can only think Textusa has managed to tap into a rich seam of fuckwits, prepared to believe this unmitigated bollocks. Either that or she is up all night writing the comments herself. Enjoy. Just don't hurt yourself.

In this little gem, Textusa weaves an elaborate conspiracy theory around the fact that within the published file there was a handwritten copy of a Tapas restaurant booking sheet for 7th May 2007, jotted down on what appears to be a page from a promotional notepad, advertising a water park close by.

Textusa claims that this innocuous bit of paper ''proves the direct involvement of both guests and ocean club staff in the cover up of Maddie's death''

Let's deal with this straight away. No, it doesn't.

It does prove, however, that Textusa isn't very bright.

One of the first indications that Textusa isn't very bright emerges when she completely fails to notice that the 7th May was both after Madeleine disappeared and after the party was due to have returned to the UK

The second is when she is unable to grasp the fact that the list is simply a copy of another document already in the files - instead of grasping this, she witters on endlessly about the co-incidence of the same information being on both sheets. - well, dur.

The third one is that despite having this pointed out to her by me and others, she is unable to grasp that the majority of those listed on that particular restaurant booking sheet WERE NOT EVEN IN PORTUGAL WHEN MADELEINE DISAPPEARED, AND ONLY FLEW OUT THE FOLLOWING WEEKEND.

Go and read it. Seriously, it's like a window into how conspiraloons think. And the comments are priceless.

Anonymous poster no 59 has her knickers in a twist over the dried blood spot.

She seems to be confused between test results from the new born screening programme and the use of the stored blood sample to obtain a DNA profile.

Dear - the testing they do under the new born screening programme does not determine the DNA profile. They test for a number of diseases and report the results. Then they store the cards. So you can get off your broom, there was no ''conspiracy'' to withhold anything. Her DNA profile would not have been done until after she disappeared

Once the stored sample was requested - and we don't know when that was - it would have to be located, the relevant permissions obtained, then processed.

Or did you think that everyone's DNA profile is there on file, just in case they ever go missing?

''On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.''That description is consistent with a Guthrie card, used to collect heel prick blood samples from new borns. In the absence of any suggestion that Madeleine was tested again for Metabolic or genetic disorders at a later point, which would be the only plausible reason for the presence of a second Guthrie card, this can be understood to be the sample taken at birth

The report later refers to the sample again''Reference sample of blood

JRB/1 Madeleine McCann From this sample was obtained a DNA reference sample that was different from those of her immediate family, described above. This DNA profile was the same as that obtained from possible spots of saliva existing on the pillowcase (SJM/1).''The pillowcase sample SJM/1 is the pillowcase collected from the house in Rothley

This therefore confirmed that the DNA profile recovered from the pillowcase, when compared to a known sample of Madeleine's blood, was a match.( In the UK, once Guthrie cards used for new born screening have been processed they remain the property of the health authority under which the testing was conducted, rather than remaining with the patient's records. As such, it can take some time to recover the card relating to a named individual. This may explain why it was several months before this was available to the police)Now - what was to stop you doing your research, Textusa?There is no substitute for actually reading the files. Not just cherrypicking the bits you think might be interesting. Still, heaven forbid anything should interfere with your conspiralooning.

people, participating in a swinging event, all simultaneously got together to

fabricate matching stories to react to an unfortunate mishap in which a child

lost her life in order to protect their own reputation. These tenths of

connected people activated as fast as they could all their connections so that

the just fabricated story would be enforced officially and in doing so got

hundreds of people involved in one of the biggest cover-up of western

civilization."

Textusa believes that Madeleine's disappearance resulted from her death at the hands of one of the party when she stumbled across them ''swinging'' Textusa has no evidence to support this, of course. It's entirely a product of her warped mind.

However, it is central to Textusa's tale that the MW resort was a sort of VIP swinging centre, and that the ''cover up'' of Madeleine's death is a massive conspiracy involving the following:

The Tapas groupMark WarnerThe employees of the Tapas restaurantThe nanniesAll other Mark Warner employeesAll the other holidaymakersLocal residentsBritish Ex-pats living in the areaThe news organisations, especially Sky news and particularly Martin BruntThe UK government, the ambassador, all the consulate staff, and the spouses of several Prime MinistersThe Portuguese governmentThe Catholic churchThe VaticanPope BenedictThe police forces of both nations, the judiciary of both nations and the Portuguese AGAn assortment of VIPs

Remember - she claims all these people are involved in a cover up. When challenged as to why hundreds of people, not previously connected to each other, would band together to commit perjury and cover up the death of a child, risking long prison sentences and the potential loss of family, home jobs and liberty her response is that it wasn't hundreds, but tens

Well dear, I suggest you do a quick count of the number of witness statements by those who fit into one of the above categories. Trust me, it's hundreds

When challenged as to why none of the people on this list, some of whom are poorly paid seasonal workers, would not leap at the chance to tell the truth and claim the reward she says it is because it would be ''unbecoming''

''Unbecoming'' Yes, really.

And of course, let's not forget her central theory - the Tapas dinners never happened. No matter that numerous staff gave their accounts of what happened that night, and that there are witness statements from other diners - no, according to Textusa, all of this is lies, made up to cover up the fact that they were all busily shagging their neighbour's wives.

And how did she decide upon this?

Well - she doesn't think they had a table big enough to seat nine.

And all of the above is why I have no hesitation in saying that Textusa either believes what she is saying - and is therefore quite mad, or she doesn't believe a word of it, and just enjoys manipulating people. In which case she is both mad and bad.

What on earth makes you think someone's medical records would contain their DNA profile, or blood samples? Do yours contain your DNA profile?

If you had read the files, you wouldn't need to ask where this information was. So go read them. You don't get a free ride here. The only way you will ever learn is to read the files yourself

Poster #51 - your post is basically incomprehensible. Adding ''Need I say more about that?'' to the end of every statement is pretty pointless, when the answer would appear to be ''Yes, if you expect a reply''

Still no proof from Textusa that the majority of people believe the ''No Tapas Dinners'' bollocks

A comparison between that profile and the profiles of Kate and Gerry McCann confirm that the DNA belongs to a female child of which they are the parents

The scientist notes that the McCanns have another female child

In due course, the profile obtained from the pillowcase is compared to the DNA profile obtained from Amelie. They are not a match

Therefore, the DNA profile obtained from the pillowcase is, in the absence of any other known female children of the couple, accepted as a surrogate reference sample for the missing child, Madeleine McCann.

In due course, a blood sample, known to belong to Madeleine McCann, is delivered to the FSS. This yields a DNA profile which is a match to the DNA profile obtained from the pillowcase.

Ergo, the DNA recovered from the pillowcase, and used as a surrogate reference sample was indeed shown to be the DNA of Madeleine McCann

ALL IN THE FILES.

If you can be bothered to look.

But by all means, continue to embarrass yourself, if you prefer. It's fun to watch.

I think you rather missed the whole point. The purpose of this blog is to show the posts that Textusa refuses to publish. As such, it will contain all the posts to her from me, and from others too, which she neglects to publish, and some that she does, but without the bits removed which she thinks are too much for your sensitive little eyeballs to have to deal with

1) I asked for EVIDENCE that any law enforcement agency bought into this ridiculous notion that there were no Tapas dinners, and that according to Textusa the majority of people agree with her. Simply re-stating something is not evidence. Where is the EVIDENCE?

2) You start by quoting me ''Reference samples could be obtained from her parents and siblings........'' and then veer off into some lecture about how you can't obtain reference samples from an individual by testing their relatives. True. You can't. But nowhere did I suggest that they either did or could. What I actually went on to say is that she wasn't there in order for a reference sample to be obtained, and so they had to look for an alternative - a surrogate reference sample, duly recovered from the pillowcase.

It's pretty pointless spending time attempting to ''debunk'' something I didn't say. I suggest you read it more carefully next time.

3) ''The question remains why didn't they use a piece of cloth from the scene''

No, the question does not remain to anyone who counts. Only yourselves and your fellow conspiraloons. You don't go about sourcing a surrogate reference sample from a crime scene. End of story.

None of which, incidentally, has anything to do with the contamination of the crime scene. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Despite your claims, the information that a stored blood sample for Madeleine was recovered, that the DNA from that was compared to the DNA profile recovered from the pillowcase, and the confirmation that they matched, proving that the DNA on the pillowcase from her IS IN THE FILES

If you are incapable of finding it, that's your problem. I could of course provide you with the reference, but I think its more fun to watch you deny its existence for a bit longer and make a bigger prat of yourself before putting you out of your misery.

This again illustrates that you haven't read the files properly. Textusa, you should be embarrassed to have such thick readers

No, you can't ''surgically clean'' a scene and contaminate it later. You certainly can't do so with assorted hair, DNA from previous occupants etc.

Your basic problem is that you obviously have no understanding either of crime scenes or how they are processed. Take someone that ignorant, fill their head full of total bollocks acquired from loony sites and you end up with you. Sad

She WAS placed at the scene. She had been staying at the scene for a week. Finding her DNA at the scene would only have been relevant if there was context, such as her DNA combined with that of an unknown 3rd party. The procedure used for obtaining a surrogate reference sample was perfectly correct

The heel prick WAS subsequently used, compared with the profile recovered from the pillowcase and shown to be a complete match. Therefore the profile recovered from the pillowcase WAS Madeleine's. This is in the files - don't you people ever read?

''That profile was never used and nothing was proved''??

Seriously - read the file. The profile WAS used, was compared to those of Kate and Gerry McCann and showed conclusively that they were her parents. Again, this is all in the files, if you can be bothered to read them. Why is it important? It isn't particularly in this case, but in suspected abductions the possibility of abduction by a birth parent has to be considered and eliminated

Charlie's saliva - of course it's verified, The DNA was a match to him. This is in the files too.

I suggest you people read the files you are so fond of referring to. I suspect most of you have read the Gaspar statements and that's about it.

For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer. In doing so, she insults her readership and treats them as children.

Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions

So in future, each post will be copied to here. You will be able to read them whether she posts them or not.

She is taking you for fools. Some of you clearly are. But not all of you.

For the ones that aren't fools, if she refuses to publish your posts, then send them to me. I'll put them on here for you